Afsana's Reviews > U is for Undertow
My rating:
U is for Undertow (Kinsey Millhone, #21)
by Sue Grafton
by Sue Grafton
I thought this was an interesting idea of the boy who cried wolf and then would not be believed.
It was told from different view points, the past and present and different characters and that made it interesting
What I don't quite get and which the book didn't explain was how the the "boy who cried wolf" could have been telling the truth when he couldn't have possibly witnessed as he was in another country and this was the documented by photogrphic proof? it made it unlikely- how as a writer can you prove the "hero" is lying and then not offer an explanation as to how come he saw the event that actually occured whilst in another country
That is why I gave it a 3 star
It was told from different view points, the past and present and different characters and that made it interesting
What I don't quite get and which the book didn't explain was how the the "boy who cried wolf" could have been telling the truth when he couldn't have possibly witnessed as he was in another country and this was the documented by photogrphic proof? it made it unlikely- how as a writer can you prove the "hero" is lying and then not offer an explanation as to how come he saw the event that actually occured whilst in another country
That is why I gave it a 3 star
Sign into Goodreads to see if any of your friends have read U is for Undertow.
sign in »
Comments (showing 1-20 of 20) (20 new)
date
newest »
newest »
yes, I had forgotten that that very question had crossed my mind as well. I do wish we had found that out which would have rounded off his character in the story. But overall, I enjoy the book very much!
i enjoyed it aswell it would have been a four but for that big inconsistency. I only give 5's to the really outstanding
I had the same problem with the time conflict. Supposedly the evidence was strong that he could not have seen what he saw at the time he thought. Yet, the perpetrators knew he was there and at the end it was accepted. The discrepancy was irritating. Sue Grafton, can you explain?
it was very irritating and disapoointing as we will never know and even moreso nowing that it wasn't me just overlooking it
MAybe will go on website and put a comment on and see if get response now that I know i wasn't just overlooking it
i was also confused and disappointed this was left without explanation. the whole premise of the mystery was him seeing the event, but then it proves he couldn't have, but really did? it was pretty important, but grafton just left it ignored. to me, this is typical of alot of her books. the story is good right up until the ending that is poorly explained or makes no sense. a let down after reading the whole novel.
He didn't see them burying the girl! Henry was right & they had buried the money from Rain's kidnapping when they realised it was marked - that's what Sutton saw them burying (the week before Mary was kidnapped). Then when they realised he had seen them they dug up the money aain & replaced it with the stolen dog - and later buried the money and Mary under the water heater.
Sarai wrote: "He didn't see them burying the girl! Henry was right & they had buried the money from Rain's kidnapping when they realised it was marked - that's what Sutton saw them burying (the week before Mary..."
thanks sarai
so all of it was a comcidence? whic still led to their capture
Kind of - he had seen the 2 men burying something & made the right connection with the murder. So when he recognised Walter it was the right person, even though he saw them a week before he thought & they were burying the money rather than the body. But eventually it all led back to the same people & the right conclusion!
i may have to reed that again
had contemplated reading the end again straight after the firdt time i read it but went against it.
There's still the problem of his being away on his birthday and the Kirkendalls having left town already. It's a glaring error or I'm missing something subtle.
Ex-minn wrote: "There's still the problem of his being away on his birthday and the Kirkendalls having left town already. It's a glaring error or I'm missing something subtle."
i think there is an unanswered qu
but normally she is on the ball
He didn't see anything on his birthday. It was the week before. Rain had been kidnapped, but Mary Claire hadn't been kidnapped yet. He was out of town whem MC was kidnapped, not when Rain was kidnapped.
I thought that the point was that his memory was valid, even if he didn't know what was being buried. His memory included the two elements of the birthday and the Kirkendalls. This is what I'm finding difficult.
Mary wrote: "He wasn't in another country, his family went to Disneyland - right there in California"
still for a child his age too young to be able to trael on own see it then return to disneyworld
He got the dates mixed up -he witnessed the "burial" the week before his birthday. It was the loot from the first crime. Then the next week he went to Disneyland for his birthday.
